Search for: "State v. So "
Results 7741 - 7760
of 116,395
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2012, 6:00 pm
Ozanne v. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 8:04 am
The court explains why no state actor is responsible for enforcing the law, so the plaintiffs lack Article III standing. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 9:26 am
So, that was February 27th for me. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 9:26 am
So, that was February 27th for me. [read post]
21 Mar 2008, 7:13 am
United States v. [read post]
27 Feb 2007, 8:16 am
The Court of Appeals upheld her firing under Garcetti, stating that a teacher’s speech is a “commodity” that has been sold to the state. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 12:18 pm
In doing so, the United States Supreme Court stated the following: This Court has never departed from the rule announced in Ker v. [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 10:02 am
Here is the abstract: In Graham v. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 12:04 pm
It's so, so nice to live in a state that has an incredibly smart state supreme court.As it happens, I was at oral argument in the California Supreme Court last week, and was incredibly -- incredibly -- impressed with the questions from the bench. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 3:45 am
State and State v. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 6:46 am
Under the categorical approach, aggravated assault in the state could apply to extreme indifference, and so it fell outside the generic definition. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 5:11 am
State, __ So.3d __, 2013 WL 1091690 (Florida Court of Appeals 2013). [read post]
24 Aug 2018, 9:14 am
Therefore, in fairness to the parties and so as to reach a fully informed decision, the court invited further submissions on the matters identified in the interim judgment. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 4:31 am
Jacobson v. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 2:12 pm
The Constitutional Court in State Information Technology Agency Soc Limited v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd held that a state applicant seeking the judicial review of their own decision may not rely on the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 2000 and must do so in terms of the principle of legality. [read post]
22 Jan 2010, 1:52 pm
And so on. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 1:30 am
Wyeth v. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 10:00 am
These dust standards are revised every five years, so it is difficult to predict the final impact of the ruling. [read post]
17 Jul 2008, 2:38 pm
The Supreme Court's recent decision in D.C. v. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 11:23 am
The post Samsung V. [read post]
